I don't see how B4 gets built. It will cost significantly more to cut through all those mountains compared to the cost to build any other alternative. B4 will have a bigger environment impact because of all the road cuts and other land modifications needed. There will be environmental lawsuits over every leg of B4 through the mountains. Going through the mountains adds to the maintenance of the highway once built, both in stress on the road by the mountains (rock slides, etc) and winter snow removal. It's also longer from Reno to LV than any other route. The only people B4 helps are those in Carson City and only because it forces through traffic through their tiny metro. There is a minimal difference in distance and convenience to get to LV (even Google Maps routes Carson City-Las Vegas through Fallon) as long as they finish four-laning US 50 from Carson City to I-11 (including a bypass of Fallon, if needed).

Option b (lower case) connects B1 to the other three options on the NE side of Walker Lake. I assume this is really only an option if the B4 option is selected north of Walker Lake. Looking at the terrain, I think the west terminus of option b is more likely to end up nearer to Schurz. I still don't see B4 happening with that option either. It will probably cost less to use any other alternative even when adding a cost of four-laning US 50 to B1-B3.

B2 and B3 both add distance compared to B1, even if a wide bypass of Tonopah is built. They just zig-zag too much between Schurz and US 6.

One other consideration: B1 is the only alternative that doesn't cross the large tribal reservation north of Walker Lake. I don't think the tribe would fight the highway; they might even encourage it to drive business traffic to the rez. But differences over the environment policy has changed tribal leadership in many places and caused changes to many a construction project. I think that's a risk worth avoiding.

I still like B1 north to Salt Wells then running around Fallon to Fernley (B1 with option e to B2 to Fernley) plus completing the four lane of US 50 between Silver Spring and wherever I-11 runs. It's the shortest, flattest, and most likely cheapest route. Don't argue that it's shorter to go from Reno to Las Vegas through Carson City via B4. It's well out of the way; it adds about 40 miles. It only shortens the route to LV for those in that little valley south of Carson City. I think a new SF Bay tunnel is more likely than B4.

The way it is anymore there is no such thing as a "cheap" Interstate highway. Any I-11 concept between Las Vegas and I-80 will be very expensive to build, even one that goes way around every mountain range between the I-15 and I-80 corridors.

IMHO, if I-11 can't manage to connect directly or very closely to the Reno area then it's not worth building I-11 up past Las Vegas at all. Towns like Fallon, Fernley and Tonopah aren't even big enough destinations to justify a long distance 4-lane expressway with at-grade intersections and driveways much less a full blown Interstate route.

There are other Interstate highways that go through difficult terrain, like canyons and mountain passes. We're living in the year 2018 yet this country seems unable to build highways through mountains. Meanwhile, I can look at lots of super highways in Japan and China that have numerous tunnels, high bridges and other features that only seem impossible to build here in the United States. The mountain pass that the old NV-2C highway traversed doesn't look nearly as challenging as some other existing Interstate paths through mountains. The B4 alternative could get through that. Still, I think the pass navigated by Cotton Wood Canyon Road directly West of Walker Lake would be a better option, provide a more direct shot at the Wellington-Smith Valley area and avoid the river canyon NV-208 squeezes through West of there.

The highway could get affected by winter weather? So what!? That's already been a threat for numerous other Interstate highways, yet those highways got built somehow. Yeah, it's inconvenient when a major highway is closed due to a blizzard, avalanche threats, floods, tornado damage, hurricanes, protesters or even O.J. Simpson in a Ford Bronco. But that's life. We wouldn't have much a highway system at all if we worried about something disrupting traffic temporarily.

And yeah, bypassing Tonopah by routing I-11 from near Lida Junction (NV-266 & US-95) up near Silver Peak and then to Coaldale (and the US-6/US-95 junction) would cut at least 25 miles off the route (roughly 60 miles versus 85 miles under the current US-95 path).

I'm sure FritzOwl would push for the B4 routing, but I think B3 has the best chance of being chosen. Although B4 provides a direct Vegas-Reno connection, it would be very expensive to build, not to mention the presence of the mountains that would also block its construction; FWIW, B3 would do just as well, as it would provide the closest connection to Reno and be cost-effective in doing so.

I agree with Bobby5280 in that if it doesn't directly and conveniently feed into the Carson City-Reno population center and its roadway network, then it really wouldn't be worth building.

Also, in all of the postings that I've made on this subject over the past several years I have been advocating using a routing directly westward from the Walled Lake area - it most closely meshes with my 'KISS' thing, 'Keep It Simple, Stupid'. It is the most direct routing into the metro area and those smaller towns in the area would be perfectly served by upgraded as necessary local surface highways.

Yea, why can't the USA build good complicated things anymore while these other countries (ie, China, Norway, Japan, etc) can and do?

Looking at the possible B4 alignment, wouldn't it be cheaper (more feasible) to route I-11 a little further north than the east end of NV 2C? There is a canyon (Reese River Canyon) a few miles north along US 95 that has a large alluvial fan that could support an easier grade along the east side of the mountain range, and would allow I-11 to join the routing of 2C a little upstream.

As for the B3 alignment, I think that if you route it west of Silver Springs and up the USA Pkwy (NV 439) to I-80, it would get the route as close to Reno as possible without crossing the mountains west of Walker Lake. Other than B4, it would be the shortest route between Reno and Vegas.

However, one consideration for B4 is the portion of that route that is already constructed: I-580. It should reduce the cost of that alignment considering that portion is already open.

Looking at the possible B4 alignment, wouldn't it be cheaper (more feasible) to route I-11 a little further north than the east end of NV 2C?

Not necessarily. US-95 and then later US-95A travels another 20+ miles to the north before finally going around the moutain range that sits on the West side of Walker Lake. Then it goes SSW into Yerington. From there the road has to go roughly 20 miles back down south (not counting all the miles going West) to get into the Smith Valley & Wellington areas. We're talking a really long, time/distance wasting "S" shape path.

Punching a highway directly through a mountain pass, even building tunnels, sure isn't cheap or easy. But there is serious cost involved with adding lots of miles to a highway just to get around an obstacle like mountains. Then there's all the extra burden of time and fuel cost added to drivers dealing with way way around routing option rather than traveling on something with a more direct path.

There are other things to consider with including Carson City in the I-11 "B4" option. The Reno-Sparks area is growing significantly, especially with big tech companies building out East of Sparks. But there is also growth going on in Carson City and a bunch of communities south of there along the US-395 corridor. Not to mention Lake Tahoe is directly West of Minden & Gardnerville. A fair amount of car and commercial traffic comes up from California on US-395. Even if I-11 were never to be built, or never built coming into Carson City from the South, it looks likely that region growth would force some serious upgrades to US-395 from Carson City down to the NV/CA border.

Build B3, but take it up NV 439, but then take I-580 over the US 50 corridor for a direct connection to Carson City.

I hadn't noticed the NV 439 corridor before. It's on the press release as the USA Parkway between Sparks and Silver Springs. I don't see the actual roadbed on imagery. But it shows as a divided roadway in Google Maps so I wonder if it would be possible to reuse the ROW for a freeway. It works best with B3, but B1 could also be used with a freeway from Silver Spring to a point about 5-10 miles south of Salt Wells then south to Tonopah. This is almost 20 miles shorter than the B3 option and doesn't need to squeeze around Walker Lake.

The NV 439 corridor has the advantage of crossing US 50 near where the four lane section to Carson City is already built. I agree this should be one of the options.

Build B3, but take it up NV 439, but then take I-580 over the US 50 corridor for a direct connection to Carson City.

I hadn't noticed the NV 439 corridor before. It's on the press release as the USA Parkway between Sparks and Silver Springs. I don't see the actual roadbed on imagery. But it shows as a divided roadway in Google Maps so I wonder if it would be possible to reuse the ROW for a freeway. It works best with B3, but B1 could also be used with a freeway from Silver Spring to a point about 5-10 miles south of Salt Wells then south to Tonopah. This is almost 20 miles shorter than the B3 option and doesn't need to squeeze around Walker Lake.

The NV 439 corridor has the advantage of crossing US 50 near where the four lane section to Carson City is already built. I agree this should be one of the options.

USA Parkway starts at I-80 Exit 32 and curves south through a large (and rapidly growing) development of big distribution center buildings, data hubs and high tech factories. I think Tesla is building a "gigafactory" in this area. Some of the route is visible on Google Earth, but the construction dead ends on the Storey-Lyon county line, halfway to US-50.

While it might seem natural to route a new freeway through this area there is a potentially deal-killing snag with the idea: all these new properties are building right up next to the existing 4-lane USA Parkway. There is not enough room to build things like modern exit ramps, frontage roads, etc using the existing USA Parkway ROW. The way all these huge industrial buildings and their property foot prints are positioned that leaves no alternative path for a freeway either. If they ever wanted to have freeway style access running through that massive development they should have planned for it ahead of time. Now it's too late.

USA Parkway is shown as complete to US 50 on Google Maps. Not a definitive source, but it's all I have. I can see on the imagery what is probably the roadbed where it was under construction in Storey County on the north end, so there's a good chance someone got overly ambitious at Google to make it look complete.

It's a pretty open valley near the Tesla plant (which is marked on Google Maps). A freeway could probably be run from I-80 to where USA Parkway starts going through the pass to Silver Springs, bypassing the industrial park near I-80. I'm sure Elon Musk would love it if the plant ran past his factory along the east side at the edge of the valley.

More arguments against the B4 alternative. It runs through some of the most productive farmland in Nevada as you travel south of Carson City to Minden. There are what looks to be significant wetlands around the Carson River. This makes it even more environmentally destructive and costly. The only reason to run it this way is if the goal is to eventually also hook up to a future four lane highway from Mono Lake. However, there is no reason for US 395 south of Carson City to be a freeway. An expressway with limited cross traffic, no stoplights, and a few interchanges would be sufficient.

There's really not a significant difference between a Fernley and NV 439 junction with I-80 as far as mileage goes; the terrain is certainly more favorable with an eastern routing (there's a reason 439 twists around as it does -- to surmount the surrounding hills). Cutting maybe 4-5 miles total off a trip from the south to Reno itself may not be a sufficient rationale to relocate a freeway to a 439-based alignment -- which, as Bobby has stated, is more of an "industrial parkway" than an alignment readily upgradeable to an Interstate-grade facility; anything generally along that corridor would have to be a parallel facility -- essentially negating any cost-savings realized by dropping I-11 onto an existing facility.

Looking at the possible B4 alignment, wouldn't it be cheaper (more feasible) to route I-11 a little further north than the east end of NV 2C?

Not necessarily. US-95 and then later US-95A travels another 20+ miles to the north before finally going around the moutain range that sits on the West side of Walker Lake. Then it goes SSW into Yerington. From there the road has to go roughly 20 miles back down south (not counting all the miles going West) to get into the Smith Valley & Wellington areas. We're talking a really long, time/distance wasting "S" shape path.

Punching a highway directly through a mountain pass, even building tunnels, sure isn't cheap or easy. But there is serious cost involved with adding lots of miles to a highway just to get around an obstacle like mountains. Then there's all the extra burden of time and fuel cost added to drivers dealing with way way around routing option rather than traveling on something with a more direct path.

There are other things to consider with including Carson City in the I-11 "B4" option. The Reno-Sparks area is growing significantly, especially with big tech companies building out East of Sparks. But there is also growth going on in Carson City and a bunch of communities south of there along the US-395 corridor. Not to mention Lake Tahoe is directly West of Minden & Gardnerville. A fair amount of car and commercial traffic comes up from California on US-395. Even if I-11 were never to be built, or never built coming into Carson City from the South, it looks likely that region growth would force some serious upgrades to US-395 from Carson City down to the NV/CA border.

I was thinking of the (dry) riverbed outlet on the east side of the mountains some 5 miles or so north of NV 2C. There's a canyon upstream from there that leads back to the 2C alignment.

NDOT's traveling public meetings concluded last night in Reno. I went to the meeting just to see what was said.

I didn't learn too much new information. Much of what was presented I had already seen on the I-11 website as they had posted the meeting presentation and materials prior to all the meetings.

Public comment was a mixed bag. There seemed to be comments in favor of all alignments, some against B1 & B4. One gentleman was vehemently opposed to B1 as it could limit/remove access to public lands. Another favored B4 with potential to make connections to Pacific NW region. A man from Hawthorne was against B1 and favored B2/B3 due to Hawthorne depot and potential negative effects on the town of Schurz and the Walker River Reservation community.

I did ask a question during public comment about ultimate purpose and likely extension paths north from I-80. The response I got was that NDOT would be focusing on what is in their locus of control currently. With the federal designations currently only specifying I-11 shall reach I-80, it seems that there is not a strong desire to initiate any I-11 planning in other potentially-effected states—therefore, NDOT is not currently beholden to other future paths in determining the specific location where I-11 connects to I-80.

The current high-level planning scoping should produce an initial report by the end of June.

NDOT's traveling public meetings concluded last night in Reno. I went to the meeting just to see what was said.

I didn't learn too much new information. Much of what was presented I had already seen on the I-11 website as they had posted the meeting presentation and materials prior to all the meetings.

Public comment was a mixed bag. There seemed to be comments in favor of all alignments, some against B1 & B4. One gentleman was vehemently opposed to B1 as it could limit/remove access to public lands. Another favored B4 with potential to make connections to Pacific NW region. A man from Hawthorne was against B1 and favored B2/B3 due to Hawthorne depot and potential negative effects on the town of Schurz and the Walker River Reservation community.

I did ask a question during public comment about ultimate purpose and likely extension paths north from I-80. The response I got was that NDOT would be focusing on what is in their locus of control currently. With the federal designations currently only specifying I-11 shall reach I-80, it seems that there is not a strong desire to initiate any I-11 planning in other potentially-effected states—therefore, NDOT is not currently beholden to other future paths in determining the specific location where I-11 connects to I-80.

The current high-level planning scoping should produce an initial report by the end of June.

It's interesting to note that the latest map features several connections between the corridor options, ostensibly so a "hybrid" corridor may emerge. At this point -- with the endpoint at I-80 still legislatively and practically open to interpretation, I still think B2 or, with the connector "E" in play, a combination of B1/E/B2, will be the final choice. Ammo depot or not, Hawthorne is still the largest town between Tonopah and Fallon and likely significant enough to maintain some level of "pull", which seems at this time to favor routing the corridor through their vicinity. I am somewhat surprised that concerns from the Walker River Native American reserve haven't been expressed -- at least publicly -- to date (if this were AZ, there would have been several news conferences or at least press releases emanating from that quarter by now!).

I watched the video of the presentation on NDOT's Facebook page, and as roadfro ("Lynwood", I gather) indicates it didn't really shed any new light. On their handout, the final page is a comment form which can be snail-mailed to Kevin Verre, the project manager of the study, and the next-to-last page has Verre's e-mail and voicemail info. They're looking for comments over the next two weeks, with this comment period closing on Friday, April 13. Here's the handout (PDF):

I am somewhat surprised that concerns from the Walker River Native American reserve haven't been expressed -- at least publicly -- to date (if this were AZ, there would have been several news conferences or at least press releases emanating from that quarter by now!).

That's one of the reasons why I've mentioned the idea of routing I-11 through the mountains on the West side of Walker Lake via the path taken by Cotton Wood Canyon Road. It wouldn't be an easy path, but it would avoid any tribal lands and open up a more direct route the Carson City area. It would avoid that big bend going up and around through Yerrington and back-tracking down toward Smith Valley and Wellington. This more direct route would just go straight to Wellington and then on up to the Carson City and Reno areas.

If I had to bet on which alignment would be chosen I think odds are strongly in favor of the B1 concept since it would be a more direct path between the Fallon and Tonopah areas (and cost less to build). However, I don't think it makes the slightest bit of sense for B1 to follow US-95 all to way to I-80 way East of the Reno-Sparks area. It's 68 miles from the I-580 interchange to that point. If the B1 option ends at Fallon and then meets I-80 in Fernley it would at least make I-11 more useful for the Reno-Sparks area.

Another observation about the notion of routing I-11 along USA Parkway in Clark then down to Silver Springs: a lot of troubling financial news has been swirling around the Tesla company, plus they announced a big recall on Model S sedans. The company's cash burn threatens to implode the operation before its "giga-factory" can open.

MOD NOTE: This post and the following two posts dated 4/24/2018 were moved here from the"I-11/US 93 - Boulder City Bypass" thread. This was done to keep discussion/speculation on potential routes of I-11 contained to this thread. —Roadfro

I just wonder if they're any closer to a decision regarding the I-11 alignment through Las Vegas itself.

Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.

Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.

The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.

So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.

I just wonder if they're any closer to a decision regarding the I-11 alignment through Las Vegas itself.

Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.

Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.

The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.

So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.

Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy. That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic. 215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.

I just wonder if they're any closer to a decision regarding the I-11 alignment through Las Vegas itself.

Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.

Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.

The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.

So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.

Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy. That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic. 215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.

Yes, that route looks possible, but it may be impractical for several reasons. First, there doesn't appear to be enough open land available to do a proper system interchange on the beltway north of Ann Road without displacing a lot of existing development. A partial connection could be done, with the S11-E215 & W215-N11 movements utilizing US 95 & the by-then completed Centennial Bowl interchange, but that would require additional signage. Not to mention the FHWA might object to the new junction not directly accommodating all movements. Next, the new I-11 mainline would have to thread its way between the large (1.3 mile-long) flood control structure to the west and the huge Providence residential development east of Pole Line Rd. While doable, I can see the residents of Providence raising a huge stink about noise, especially if all thru-trucks were to be required to use I-11. The sound walls likely necessary to placate those concerns would further drive up the cost of such a project. In addition, a service interchange at Kyle Canyon Road (SR 157) would also likely need to be built, and it would be located only about a mile west of the currently under construction DDI on US 95. And finally, to avoid impacting the existing interchanges on US 95, the I-11 tie-in to that route would almost certainly have to be placed on land under the jurisdiction of the Paiute Native American community (north of Moccasin Rd) who might object to another freeway route crossing their land so close to the existing one, especially when it appears to be totally unnecessary.

Given that the through-town I-11 path would require zero new mainline mileage to be constructed, minimizing costs, that option still appears to be the most logical and cost-effective routing for this new 2-di. Of course we all know if there's money to be made by private interests, logic can sometimes go out the window. However there just appears to be too many costly obstacles for the Beltway option of I-11 to be recommended.

Sorry for getting a little off-topic in this thread! I await the imminent opening of the Boulder City Bypass to the new US 95 interchange. My question from above still stands... has a firm date for that been set/announced?

Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.

The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.

So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.

Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy. That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic. 215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.

Yes, that route looks possible, but it may be impractical for several reasons. First, there doesn't appear to be enough open land available to do a proper system interchange on the beltway north of Ann Road without displacing a lot of existing development. A partial connection could be done, with the S11-E215 & W215-N11 movements utilizing US 95 & the by-then completed Centennial Bowl interchange, but that would require additional signage. Not to mention the FHWA might object to the new junction not directly accommodating all movements. Next, the new I-11 mainline would have to thread its way between the large (1.3 mile-long) flood control structure to the west and the huge Providence residential development east of Pole Line Rd. While doable, I can see the residents of Providence raising a huge stink about noise, especially if all thru-trucks were to be required to use I-11. The sound walls likely necessary to placate those concerns would further drive up the cost of such a project. In addition, a service interchange at Kyle Canyon Road (SR 157) would also likely need to be built, and it would be located only about a mile west of the currently under construction DDI on US 95. And finally, to avoid impacting the existing interchanges on US 95, the I-11 tie-in to that route would almost certainly have to be placed on land under the jurisdiction of the Paiute Native American community (north of Moccasin Rd) who might object to another freeway route crossing their land so close to the existing one, especially when it appears to be totally unnecessary.

Given that the through-town I-11 path would require zero new mainline mileage to be constructed, minimizing costs, that option still appears to be the most logical and cost-effective routing for this new 2-di. Of course we all know if there's money to be made by private interests, logic can sometimes go out the window. However there just appears to be too many costly obstacles for the Beltway option of I-11 to be recommended.

From what I've seen, it appears that if the 215 option is taken, a full system interchange would not be constructed at I-11 and 215—it would just be the ramps needed to facilitate the new north/south I-11 segment. A system interchange at that location would not really be necessary, given the proximity of Durango Drive (currently signed SB as "TO CC-215") and the US 95/215 interchange. Similarly, you could likely get away with a directional interchange between I-11 and US 95, and possibly only a half interchange with I-11 and SR 157 (to/from the south). This alignment would veer out slightly to make use of currently empty land west of Providence, so as to not plow through that area (much of that land is BLM or part of the Humboldt-Toyabi National Forest land surrounding the Mount Charleston area, so it would be relatively easy to transfer that over for NDOT use.

Quote

Sorry for getting a little off-topic in this thread! I await the imminent opening of the Boulder City Bypass to the new US 95 interchange. My question from above still stands... has a firm date for that been set/announced?

No problem, it happens frequently with that thread. I've split discussion off like this a couple times.

Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.

The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.

So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.

Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy. That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic. 215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.

Yes, that route looks possible, but it may be impractical for several reasons. First, there doesn't appear to be enough open land available to do a proper system interchange on the beltway north of Ann Road without displacing a lot of existing development. A partial connection could be done, with the S11-E215 & W215-N11 movements utilizing US 95 & the by-then completed Centennial Bowl interchange, but that would require additional signage. Not to mention the FHWA might object to the new junction not directly accommodating all movements. Next, the new I-11 mainline would have to thread its way between the large (1.3 mile-long) flood control structure to the west and the huge Providence residential development east of Pole Line Rd. While doable, I can see the residents of Providence raising a huge stink about noise, especially if all thru-trucks were to be required to use I-11. The sound walls likely necessary to placate those concerns would further drive up the cost of such a project. In addition, a service interchange at Kyle Canyon Road (SR 157) would also likely need to be built, and it would be located only about a mile west of the currently under construction DDI on US 95. And finally, to avoid impacting the existing interchanges on US 95, the I-11 tie-in to that route would almost certainly have to be placed on land under the jurisdiction of the Paiute Native American community (north of Moccasin Rd) who might object to another freeway route crossing their land so close to the existing one, especially when it appears to be totally unnecessary.

Given that the through-town I-11 path would require zero new mainline mileage to be constructed, minimizing costs, that option still appears to be the most logical and cost-effective routing for this new 2-di. Of course we all know if there's money to be made by private interests, logic can sometimes go out the window. However there just appears to be too many costly obstacles for the Beltway option of I-11 to be recommended.

From what I've seen, it appears that if the 215 option is taken, a full system interchange would not be constructed at I-11 and 215—it would just be the ramps needed to facilitate the new north/south I-11 segment. A system interchange at that location would not really be necessary, given the proximity of Durango Drive (currently signed SB as "TO CC-215") and the US 95/215 interchange. Similarly, you could likely get away with a directional interchange between I-11 and US 95, and possibly only a half interchange with I-11 and SR 157 (to/from the south). This alignment would veer out slightly to make use of currently empty land west of Providence, so as to not plow through that area (much of that land is BLM or part of the Humboldt-Toyabi National Forest land surrounding the Mount Charleston area, so it would be relatively easy to transfer that over for NDOT use.

Quote

Sorry for getting a little off-topic in this thread! I await the imminent opening of the Boulder City Bypass to the new US 95 interchange. My question from above still stands... has a firm date for that been set/announced?

No problem, it happens frequently with that thread. I've split discussion off like this a couple times.

The problem with going further out onto public land to avoid impacting Providence is the added costs of crossing all the drainage features leading into that huge flood control structure and the added length of the mainline. Granted it would avoid some added costs as well (the sound wall wouldn't be needed), but compared to a route with zero new mainline freeway construction required, I still can't see it passing muster from a cost-benefit perspective. You're likely correct about only needing a half-diamond at 157, since motorists coming from/going to the north could easily use US 95 to accomplish that. Guess at some point, we'll see what is chosen.

I remember seeing one of the planning alternatives for I-11 in Las Vegas jumping off CC-215 just North of the Ann Road exit and veering West of the Providence neighborhood. The freeway would run between Pole Line Rd and the large flood control berm just west of the housing area. That version of I-11 would continue running North until it hit US-95.

I remember seeing one of the planning alternatives for I-11 in Las Vegas jumping off CC-215 just North of the Ann Road exit and veering West of the Providence neighborhood. The freeway would run between Pole Line Rd and the large flood control berm just west of the housing area. That version of I-11 would continue running North until it hit US-95.

That alternative was discussed earlier; it would probably work if configured strictly as an elongated ramp between NB 215 near Ann Rd. and US 95 due north via the alignment you mention; other movements between 215 and northward US 95/I-11 would be made at the current 95/215 crossing site. Picture the function of IN's I-865 turned on its side and applied to this situation -- and that's essentially what would have to happen here to make the interchange with 215 practical in that area.